Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Wiener klinische Wochenschrift 13-14/2023

Open Access 08.06.2023 | original article

Simulation of bempedoic acid and ezetimibe in the lipid-lowering treatment pathway in Austria using the contemporary SANTORINI cohort of high and very high risk patients

verfasst von: Prof. Hermann Toplak, Aikaterini Bilitou, PhD, Prof. Hannes Alber, Prof. Johann Auer, Prof. Martin Clodi, Prof. Christoph Ebenbichler, Dr. Evelyn Fließer-Görzer, Dr. Carmen Gelsinger, Dr. Ursula Hanusch, Prof. Bernhard Ludvik, Dr. Thomas Maca, Prof. Andreas Schober, Dr. Reinhard Sock, Prof. Walter S. Speidl, Prof. Thomas M. Stulnig, Prof. Raimund Weitgasser, Prof. Andreas Zirlik, Marina Koch, MSc, Sebastian Wienerroither, PhD, Sorrel E. Wolowacz, PhD, Françoise Diamand, MSc, Alberico L. Catapano

Erschienen in: Wiener klinische Wochenschrift | Ausgabe 13-14/2023

Summary

Objective

The low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals in the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society dyslipidaemia guidelines necessitate greater use of combination therapies. We describe a real-world cohort of patients in Austria and simulate the addition of oral bempedoic acid and ezetimibe to estimate the proportion of patients reaching goals.

Methods

Patients at high or very high cardiovascular risk on lipid-lowering treatments (excluding proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors) from the Austrian cohort of the observational SANTORINI study were included using specific criteria. For patients not at their risk-based goals at baseline, addition of ezetimibe (if not already received) and subsequently bempedoic acid was simulated using a Monte Carlo simulation.

Results

A cohort of patients (N = 144) with a mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol of 76.4 mg/dL, with 94% (n = 135) on statins and 24% (n = 35) on ezetimibe monotherapy or in combination, were used in the simulation. Only 36% of patients were at goal (n = 52). Sequential simulation of ezetimibe (where applicable) and bempedoic acid increased the proportion of patients at goal to 69% (n = 100), with a decrease in the mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol from 76.4 mg/dL at baseline to 57.7 mg/dL overall.

Conclusions

The SANTORINI real-world data in Austria suggest that a proportion of high and very high-risk patients remain below the guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals. Optimising use of oral ezetimibe and bempedoic acid after statins in the lipid-lowering pathway could result in substantially more patients attaining low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals, likely with additional health benefits.
Hinweise

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death in Europe, with more than 4 million associated deaths every year [1]. Aside from increased mortality, CVD is a major cause of disability [2, 3] and reduced quality of life [4] and is associated with poor clinical outcomes [2, 3]. As well as impacting patients, CVD causes considerable economic burden with direct healthcare costs amounting to €111 billion per year in Europe [2]. Increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is widely accepted as a proven and direct cause of atherosclerotic CVD [1, 57] and its major clinical sequelae [5, 8]. Each 1 mmol/L (38.67 mg/dL) LDL‑C reduction corresponds to an approximately 20% proportional risk reduction in atherosclerotic CVD events and 10% reduction in all-cause mortality [1, 5, 9], independently of the LDL‑C lowering mechanism [1013].
Although there are well-established lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs), treatment recommendations, and risk-based goals for LDL‑C lowering in Europe [1], the population-level achievement of LDL‑C goals is limited by barriers such as statin intolerance, the limited efficacy of ezetimibe, and the cost and restricted reimbursement of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors [1416]. In a European multinational (18 countries) observational study (DA VINCI), the risk-based LDL‑C goal defined by the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines was achieved in only 33% of patients prescribed LLT for primary or secondary prevention in primary or secondary care [17]. Similar findings were reported for the Austrian cohort of the DA VINCI study [18]. Many patients in routine clinical practice remain suboptimally treated and thus at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk; as a result, they need intensification of LLT for further LDL‑C lowering. Statins plus ezetimibe will only achieve LDL‑C goals on average in about 40–45% of high and very high risk patients, meaning that at least one third of these patients will require use of additional oral therapy or injectable PCSK9 inhibitor [6, 15, 17, 1921] or inclisiran.
Bempedoic acid is a first-in-class, adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor, once daily, oral LDL‑C lowering treatment that can be combined with other LLTs in patients with hypercholesterolaemia (heterozygous familial and nonfamilial) or mixed dyslipidaemia who, despite current oral LLTs, are not reaching their therapeutic goals [2225].
Bempedoic acid and its fixed-dose combination with ezetimibe were approved by the European Medicines Agency based on pivotal randomised controlled phase 3 trials in a spectrum of patients receiving maximum-tolerated statin dose (CLEAR Harmony [25], CLEAR Wisdom [23], and a fixed-dose combination study (1002FDC-053; [26])) and patients receiving no or low-dose statin (CLEAR Serenity [24] and CLEAR Tranquility [22]).
Bempedoic acid has been endorsed in consensus statements and scientific society guidance, which reinforce that it is an affordable oral treatment option that is easy to use and suitable for people who are not at goal with existing lipid-lowering treatments [6, 2729].
This analysis aimed (1) to estimate the proportion of patients within an Austrian real-world cohort who would need additional oral LLT according to the 2019 ESC/EAS dyslipidaemia guidelines and (2) to simulate the effects of intensifying lipid-lowering therapy by addition of ezetimibe and bempedoic acid on attainment of LDL‑C goals.

Patients, materials and methods

SANTORINI patient cohort

The SANTORINI study (NCT04271280) is a multinational, multicentre, non-interventional, prospective, observational study, designed to describe how LLTs are used in the real world and to what extent these approaches achieve guideline recommendations [6, 30]. Patients with high or very high CV risk according to the investigator’s assessment were included in 14 European countries and were treated with LLT according to routine clinical practice. Aggregate baseline data from the Austrian patient cohort (from 17 March 2020 to 31 July 2021) of the SANTORINI observational study were used for this analysis (Table 1).
Table 1
Selection of eligible patients from the SANTORINI cohort for the simulation
Cohort selection (Austria)
Number of patients (%)
Overall cohort with cleaned baseline data
310 (100)
With non-missing baseline LDL‑C or recalculated with Friedewald formula
297 (95.8)
With non-missing ESC classification of risk
280 (90.3)
With non-missing intensity for statin users
275 (88.7)
Excluding patients with no LLT documented
199 (64.2)
Excluding patients receiving PCSK9 inhibitors
144 (46.5)
ESC European Society of Cardiology, LDL‑C low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, LLT lipid-lowering therapy, PCSK9 proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9
Patients from the SANTORINI Austrian cohort were eligible for inclusion in the simulation (Table 1) if they were receiving any LLT, had a known statin regimen (if on statins), and had a non-missing baseline LDL‑C value (directly recorded or calculated using the Friedewald formula) [31]. Patients who at baseline were documented to be on no LLT (n = 76; assumed to be newly identified patients) or on a PCSK9 inhibitor (N = 61; assumed to have gone through treatment intensification) were excluded from the simulation. No statin intensification was simulated because it was assumed that LLT was at the maximum-tolerated regimen at baseline for those patients already on a statin or ezetimibe. Patients were stratified into high and very high CV risk groups using the risk classifications by the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines [1].

Simulation of the lipid-lowering therapy pathway and LDL-C reduction

We used a Monte Carlo simulation approach as reported previously [3235] to simulate the addition of oral bempedoic acid after ezetimibe in the LLT pathway in the Austrian SANTORINI cohort (Fig. 1).
In the simulation, it was first determined whether the baseline LDL‑C value of patients (on an existing LLT) met their individual risk-based goal, as defined by the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines (i.e., < 70 mg/dL or 1.8 mmol/L for those at high CV risk and < 55 mg/dL or 1.4 mmol/L for those at very high CV risk [1]). For patients not at goal, an LLT intensifying algorithm was applied (Fig. 1). The algorithm sequentially simulated the addition of ezetimibe (10 mg) and, optionally, bempedoic acid (180 mg) in case of non-achievement of LDL‑C treatment goal. The effect of the simulated treatment relied on probabilistically generated LDL-C-reduction efficacies sampled from probabilistic density functions derived from clinical trial data for each drug. The number of patients receiving treatment, the number reaching their LDL‑C goal, and the overall LDL‑C value for the patient cohort were estimated after each step of the simulation. For patients with LDL‑C levels higher than their individual goal and not already receiving ezetimibe treatment, the effect of adding ezetimibe treatment on LDL‑C was simulated. For patients still not at goal (either with ezetimibe at baseline or after addition of ezetimibe in the simulation), the effect of adding bempedoic acid treatment on LDL‑C was simulated.
The efficacy of ezetimibe was simulated in a similar way to that reported by Cannon et al. (2017), using a beta distribution with a mean LDL‑C reduction from baseline of 22.7% [36] and standard deviation (SD) of 16.5% [37]. The alpha and beta parameters of the distribution used were not reported by Cannon et al. [33]. In the present simulation, a beta distribution with alpha = 1.6 and beta = 5.4 was used, providing a reasonable approximation of the reported treatment effect (mean, 22.9%; SD, 14.8%) (Table 1).
The efficacy of bempedoic acid was simulated as reported previously [38] using lognormal distributions derived from the treatment effects observed in the CLEAR studies, for which patient-level data were available [38]. The lognormal distribution was selected because it allows for increases in LDL‑C level as well as decreases. For patients receiving moderate- or high-dose statin at baseline, the efficacy distribution for bempedoic acid was estimated on the basis of the pooled patient-level data from CLEAR Harmony [25] and CLEAR Wisdom (Fig. 2a, [23]). For patients receiving no or low-dose statin at baseline, the efficacy distribution for bempedoic acid was estimated on the basis of the pooled patient-level data from CLEAR Serenity [24] and CLEAR Tranquility (Fig. 2b, [22]). Table 2 presents the parameters of the distributions applied for modelling of the trial data.
Table 2
Distribution parameters for modelled LDL‑C reductions with ezetimibe and bempedoic acid
Treatment
Distribution
Parameters
Mean % LDL‑C reduction (SD %)a
Ezetimibe
Betab
Alpha = 1.6
Beta = 5.4
22.9 (14.8)
Bempedoic acid (moderate- or high-dose statin background)
Lognormal
Log mean = −0.2137
Log SD = 0.2505
16.7 (21.2)c
Bempedoic acid (no or low-dose statin background)
Lognormal
Log mean = −0.3176
Log SD = 0.2931
24.0 (22.8)d
LDL‑C low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, SD standard deviation
aBased on LDL‑C reduction of week 12 versus baseline
bAdapted from [33]
cModelled using patient-level data pool 1 n = 1922 (CLEAR Harmony and CLEAR Wisdom)
dModelled using patient-level data pool 2 n = 399 (CLEAR Serenity and CLEAR Tranquility)
The effect of treatment on LDL‑C levels was estimated using Monte Carlo simulation with probabilistic sampling of the treatment effects; we ran 10,000 simulations of the complete set of patients. Simulations were performed using R Version 4.0.3 [39]. Variables were double programmed independently by 2 statisticians and checked, and the simulation programme was run and checked by a second statistician. After each of the 10,000 simulations, the mean LDL‑C value of the patient cohort was calculated after the addition of ezetimibe and after the addition of bempedoic acid in the simulation. The median, the 2.5% quartile, and the 97.5% quartile of these 10,000 LDL‑C means were calculated. Similarly, the number of patients at goal was estimated at the end of each simulation step, then the median, the 2.5% quartile, and the 97.5% quartile of these 10,000 LDL‑C numbers were calculated on completion of the simulation.

Results

The baseline characteristics of high and very high-risk individuals of the Austrian SANTORINI cohort (N = 310) are presented in Table 3. The mean age was 65 years, 36% were female, 73% with existing cardiovascular disease (secondary prevention) and 38% diabetic. The mean LDL‑C was 93.58 mg/dL (SD 57.73), with 39.0% of patients on statin monotherapy, 12.5% on ezetimibe monotherapy or with statins, 19.6% PCSK9i (alone or in combination) and 26.1% on no lipid-lowering therapy (Table 4). From this cohort, for the purpose of the simulation, patients who were not on any LLT at baseline (n = 76) were excluded, as it was assumed that they were newly identified individuals of high risk needing initiation with statin or statin intolerant individuals, who would need to go through statin optimization. Patients who were already on PCSK9 inhibitors at baseline were also excluded (n = 61) assuming that these patients, based on prescription criteria in Austria for PCSK9 inhibitors, were on their maximum-tolerated regimen of lipid-lowering therapy and would not qualify for ezetimibe or bempedoic acid add-on; therefore, the simulation cohort used was a subset of the overall SANTORINI cohort (n = 144; see also Table 1).
Table 3
Baseline characteristics of the Austrian SANTORINI cohort overall (N = 310) and the simulation cohort (N = 144)
Characteristic
Simulation cohort (N = 144)
SANTORINI cohort (N = 310)
Demographics
Age, years, mean (SD)
68.8 (10.2)
65.4 (11.4)
Female, n (%)
46 (31.9%)
111 (35.8%)
Diabetic, n (%)
74 (51.4%)
119 (38.4%)
BMI, mean (SD)
28.3 (5.0)
28.1 (4.9)
LDL‑C (SD), mg/dL, mean (SD)
76.38 (43.59)
93.58 (57.70)
CV risk
High risk, n (%)
9 (6.3%)a
31 (15.1%)b
Very high risk, n (%)
135 (93.8%)a
169 (84.5%)b
Primary prevention
35 (24.3%)
83 (26.8%)
Secondary prevention
109 (75.7%)
227 (73.2%)
Myocardial infarction
38 (26.4%)
86 (27.7%)
Unstable angina
9 (6.3%)
21 (6.8%)
Stroke
15 (10.4%)
26 (8.4%)
Transient ischaemic attack
10 (6.9%)
13 (4.2%)
Familial hypercholesterolemia
29 (20.1%)
61 (19.7%)
Note: Data presented are mean (SD) or n (%) as indicated
BMI body mass index, CV cardiovascular, EAS European Atherosclerosis Society, ESC European Society for Cardiology, LDL‑C low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, SD standard deviation
aCV risk assessed as per ESC/EAS 2019 classification
bCV risk calculated for N = 200 patients in which the physician reported using ESC/EAS guidelines for CV risk estimation
Table 4
Lipid-lowering therapy at baseline for the Austrian SANTORINI cohort overall (N = 310) and simulation cohort (N = 144)
SANTORINI cohort (N=310) (%)
No LLT
81 (26.1)
Statin alone (any)
121 (39.0)a
Low intensity
1 (0.3)
Medium intensity
51 (16.5)
High intensity
65 (21.0)
Ezetimibe alone
6 (1.9)
Statin+ezetimibe
33 (10.6)
PCSK9i alone
19 (6.1)
PCSK9i+other LLT
42 (13.5)
Other LLT
8 (2.6)
Simulation cohort (N=144)b (%)
No LLT
Excluded from cohort
Statin (any)
135 (93.8)
Low intensity
1 (0.7)
Moderate/high intensity
134 (93.1)
Ezetimibe
35 (24.3)
PCSK9i
Excluded from cohort
Low intensity statins include simvastatin 10 mg, pravastatin 10–20 mg, lovastatin 20 mg, fluvastatin 20–40 mg, and pitavastatin 1 mg
Moderate intensity statins include atorvastatin 10–20 mg, rosuvastatin 5–10 mg, simvastatin 20–40 mg, pravastatin 40–80 mg, lovastatin 40 mg, fluvastatin XL 80 mg, fluvastatin 40 mg twice daily, and pitavastatin 2–4 mg
High intensity statins include atorvastatin 40–80 mg and rosuvastatin 20–40 mg
LLT lipid-lowering therapy, PCSK9 proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9, SD standard deviation
a121 patients on statin monotherapy, for 4 (1.29%) of whom the statin intensity was missing
bPatients on no LLT or on PCSK9 is were excluded from the simulation analysis. Patients on statins or ezetimibe are not necessarily on monotherapy only; they may be on combination regimens with other LLTs thus numbers may not add up to 100%
The mean LDL‑C of this cohort was 76.4 mg/dL, with 94% (n = 135) of patients on statins, the vast majority of whom were on moderate or high intensity statin (99.3%, n = 134); 24% (n = 35) were on ezetimibe, either as monotherapy or in combination (Table 4). Fifty-two patients (36.1%) had LDL‑C values meeting their risk-based ESC/EAS 2019 recommended goal. Goal attainment was similar independent of CV risk level (i.e., high or very high risk) (Fig. 3b). In addition, for those patients for whom the physician reported using the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for risk classification, we compared the physician-reported CV risk with the calculated risk using the patient data and medical history. Interestingly, there was an underestimation of the true CV risk for a proportion of patients (Fig. 3a).
In the simulation, out of the 92 patients not at goal, 72 were not receiving ezetimibe at baseline and thus were simulated to receive ezetimibe. A third of these patients (33%, n = 24 out of 72) reached their risk-based goal (Fig. 1). Another 68 patients were not at goal after ezetimibe (20 on ezetimibe at baseline and 48 still not at goal after simulation of ezetimibe) and thus were allocated bempedoic acid add-on therapy in the simulation. Addition of bempedoic acid was estimated to result in additional 35% (n = 24 out of 68) of patients reaching their goal.
Overall, the cumulative number of patients at goal in the cohort was estimated to increase from 52 (36.1%) at baseline to 76 (52.8%) and 100 (69.4%) after addition of ezetimibe and bempedoic acid, subsequently (Fig. 4). The distribution of patient LDL‑C levels at baseline and at the end of the simulation is presented in Fig. 5. The proportion of patients with LDL‑C lower than 55 and 70 mg/dL was substantially increased after the treatment simulation. For example, the proportion of patients with LDL‑C lower than 55 mg/dL almost doubled from 35–67%, and the proportion of patients with LDL‑C lower than 70 mg/dL increased from 55–80%. The mean LDL‑C for the whole cohort lowered from 76.4 mg/dL at baseline to 65.4 mg/dL and 57.7 mg/dL, after the sequential simulation of ezetimibe and bempedoic acid respectively (Fig. 4). At the end of the simulation, 74.3% of the overall cohort of 144 patients were receiving ezetimibe and 47.2% were receiving bempedoic acid.

Discussion

In our simulation, the cumulative number of patients at their risk-based LDL‑C goal in the Austrian cohort was estimated to almost double after addition of ezetimibe and bempedoic acid, from 36% at baseline to a total of 69%. The mean absolute LDL‑C reduction for the whole cohort after this stepwise approach with oral combination treatment was 18.7 mg/dL, from 76.4 mg/dL at baseline to 57.7 mg/dL, with 80% of patients being at an LDL‑C level ≤ 70 mg/dL (Fig. 5).
Strengths of this analysis include (1) the use of a contemporary patient cohort from clinical centres in Austria, (2) particular attention paid to ensuring the accuracy of the LLT and LDL‑C data recorded, and (3) our model accounting for simulating a cohort to a realistic degree and considering the variability of LDL‑C reductions between different patients in response to LLT.
The baseline characteristics and treatment utilisation in the Austrian SANTORINI cohort of high and very high-risk individuals reflect contemporary data within 2 years after the 2019 ESC/EAS guideline update. Despite a high-risk patient cohort with the majority of patients with existing CV disease, treatment patterns remain similar to that reported in the previous European and Austrian DA VINCI study [17, 18], suggesting that guideline implementation in routine practice is lagging behind. CV risk underestimation and underutilisation of combination therapies as shown in our analysis may explain the low goal attainment overall. This analysis simulates how utilising the oral therapies of ezetimibe and bempedoic acid in combination with statins of any intensity would improve attainment of goals and substantially increase the proportion of patients reaching their risk-based goals before utilising PCSK9. In our analysis, a third of patients would still need further optimisation of treatment, such as addition of a PCSK9 inhibitor. Two previous simulation studies in selected German cohorts showed that addition of bempedoic acid to the LLT pathway may help reduce the need for a PCSK9 inhibitor at a population level and subsequently lower the annual overall treatment cost of therapy for healthcare systems [35, 38]. A further simulation study described the expected LDL‑C reduction after initiating bempedoic acid and estimated the potential absolute cardiovascular event risk reduction in patients with ASCVD [40]. Cardiovascular outcomes data for bempedoic acid were expected at the time of this manuscript preparation [41].
Treatment effects for bempedoic acid were simulated using lognormal distributions, which allow for both increases and reductions in LDL‑C, and closely matched the observed patient-level data from the trials. We took a conservative approach in estimating the efficacy of bempedoic acid by using all observed values of LDL‑C from the patient-level data at 12 weeks from baseline; the best-fitted distributions were used, but these potentially underestimate the treatment effect of bempedoic acid in this population. On the contrary, since no patient-level data were available for ezetimibe, we used an efficacy of 22.7% mean LDL‑C reduction simulated via a beta distribution as used by Cannon et al. [33], although its efficacy is reported between 15 and 22% due to relatively high interindividual variation [1]. Because the beta distribution is constrained to values between 0 and 100%, patients receiving ezetimibe in the simulation could only have a reduction in LDL‑C, which may not fully reflect clinical observations [42, 43]. In our analysis, we took a pragmatic approach to assume that the patients who were on a statin at baseline were at their maximum-tolerated dose, after having excluded those who were on no LLT; statin dose intensification was not further simulated. Out of the 310 patients in the SANTORINI Austrian cohort, 39% were on statin monotherapy at baseline and the majority of them were already on moderate or high intensity statin, while another 11% were on statin and ezetimibe combination therapy; this is consistent to that observed in the Austrian analysis of the DA VINCI study [18] where the vast majority of those on statin were indeed at moderate/high intensity. After excluding 26% of patients from the SANTORINI cohort who were on no LLT at baseline (assuming they were either treatment naïve, newly identified high-risk individuals, statin intolerant or not optimally treated and in need of further statin intensification), we mimic a cohort who has been maximised on their statin (and/or ezetimibe use) yet not at goal and would benefit from further oral lipid lowering therapy. It is possible that not all patients in the simulation cohort were at maximum tolerated statin dose, however, we believe that this is the closest to real-world practice.
There are certain limitations associated with this study, including the virtual basis of the analysis. But since we are extrapolating from meticulously collected real-world cohort data and since the calculations of treatment effects were performed in a conservative manner, we believe that our results are realistic and robust. The total number of patients included in the final calculation is quite low and may therefore not be representative of the Austrian high-cardiovascular risk population. Data capture was limiting and therefore we were unable to differentiate who was statin intolerant (not willing or able to tolerate statins) or treatment naïve/newly diagnosed patients and therefore these patients were excluded from the analysis. As per EAS/ESC 2019 guidelines and local treatment algorithms, the patients who were not on LLT despite having high or very high CV risk, should as a first step initiate statins, but this was out of scope for this simulation.
Furthermore, the study might be prone to selection bias because the SANTORINI study recruited patients that were deemed to be of high or very high CV risk and in need of lipid treatment. In our cohort, around 20% of individuals had HeFH which is somewhat higher than the overall proportion reported in epidemiological studies. This may be related to a selection bias since HeFH patients are most often being enrolled in registries such as the SANTORINI study and centers for lipid management. Lastly, the treatment effect of add-on LLT can only be expected if the medication is taken compliantly; in our analysis we did not account for non-adherence, neither did we account for adverse effects/safety, following similar approach to previous simulation studies.
In conclusion, optimising further the oral LLT pathway after statins by the use of bempedoic acid and ezetimibe add-on could result in substantial improvements in the number of patients reaching their LDL‑C goals.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the SANTORINI Investigators and patients who participated in the observational study. We acknowledge Carina Dinkel-Keuthage and Annie Burden for their support in statistical analysis and quality control of the data.

Funding

This study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

C. Gelsinger, T. Maca, R. Sock declare that they have no competing interests. S. Wolowacz is an employee of RTI Health Solutions. RTI Health Solutions received funding from Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH for the preparation of this manuscript. A. Bilitou, M. Koch, S. Wienerroither, and F. Diamand are employees of Daiichi Sankyo. Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH is the market authorisation holder in Europe, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom for bempedoic acid and bempedoic acid fixed-dose combination with ezetimibe. All co-authors received study fees from Daiichi Sankyo. H. Toplak has received honoraria for lecturing and consulting as well as research support from Daiichi Sankyo. H. Alber has received study fees from Daiichi Sankyo, and lecture and consulting fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Amgen, and Sanofi-Aventis. J. Auer has received consulting work and lecture fees from Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi, and Daiichi Sankyo. M. Clodi has received lecture and consultant fees from Astra Zeneca, Boerhinger Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Sanofi, Amgen, and Daiichi Sankyo. C. Ebenbichler has received grants and personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Sanofi, and Sobi. E. Fließer-Görzer has received presentation, study, and/or congress support from Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Allergan, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Sanofi Aventis. U. Hanusch has acted as investigator in clinical trials conducted by Bayer, Lilly, Amgen, Vertanical, and Novo Nordisk. B. Ludvik has received honoraria for lectures, advisory boards, and research support from Amgen, Sanofi, Novartis, and Daiichi Sankyo. A. Schober has received speaker fees and institutional research support from Daiichi-Sankyo. W. Speidl has received support for lectures, advisory board participation, clinical trials, and/or other research from Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Sanofi. T. Stulnig has received honoraria for lectures and/or consultation as well as travel support from Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, Sanofi, Sobi; research support from Daiichi-Sankyo and Sanofi. R. Weitgasser has received research grants, speaker fees, and consultant advisory board fees (2017–2022) from the following: Abbott Diabetes Care, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Medtrust, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, and Spar. A. Zirlik has received consultant fees from Bayer Health Care, Boehringer Ingelheim, Rigel, Cardiorentis, Medscape Stealth Peptides, Sanofi Aventis, Medtronic, Norvatis and honoraria for lectures from Bayer Health Care, Astra Zeneca, Medtronic, ResMed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Rigel, Sanofi Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Thoratec, Abiomed, Daiichi Sankyo, Abbott and Cardiac Dimensions. A.L. Catapano has received honoraria, lecture fees, or research grants from the following: Amarin, Sigma-Tau, Menarini, Kowa, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Mediolanum, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Aegerion, Amgen, Genzyme, Bayer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, and The Corpus. The work of A.L. Catapano is supported in part by the Italian Ministry of Health—Ricerca Corrente.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants or on human tissue were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1975 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for being included in the study.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

Abo für kostenpflichtige Inhalte

Literatur
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Ference BA, Ginsberg HN, Graham I, Ray KK, Packard CJ, Bruckert E, et al. Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. 1. Evidence from genetic, epidemiologic, and clinical studies. A consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(32):2459–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx144.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ference BA, Ginsberg HN, Graham I, Ray KK, Packard CJ, Bruckert E, et al. Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. 1. Evidence from genetic, epidemiologic, and clinical studies. A consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(32):2459–72. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​eurheartj/​ehx144.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Borén J, Chapman MJ, Krauss RM, Packard CJ, Bentzon JF, Binder CJ, et al. Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: pathophysiological, genetic, and therapeutic insights: a consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(24):2313–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz962.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Borén J, Chapman MJ, Krauss RM, Packard CJ, Bentzon JF, Binder CJ, et al. Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: pathophysiological, genetic, and therapeutic insights: a consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(24):2313–30. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​eurheartj/​ehz962.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
15.
Zurück zum Zitat De Luca L, Arca M, Temporelli PL, Meessen J, Riccio C, Bonomo P, et al. Current lipid lowering treatment and attainment of LDL targets recommended by ESC/EAS guidelines in very high-risk patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: Insights from the START registry. Int J Cardiol. 2020;316:229–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.05.055.CrossRefPubMed De Luca L, Arca M, Temporelli PL, Meessen J, Riccio C, Bonomo P, et al. Current lipid lowering treatment and attainment of LDL targets recommended by ESC/EAS guidelines in very high-risk patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: Insights from the START registry. Int J Cardiol. 2020;316:229–35. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​ijcard.​2020.​05.​055.CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Katzmann JL, Sorio-Vilela F, Dornstauder E, Fraas U, Smieszek T, Zappacosta S, et al. Non-statin lipid-lowering therapy over time in very-high-risk patients: effectiveness of fixed-dose statin/ezetimibe compared to separate pill combination on LDL‑C. Clin Res Cardiol. 2022;111(3):243–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01740-8.CrossRefPubMed Katzmann JL, Sorio-Vilela F, Dornstauder E, Fraas U, Smieszek T, Zappacosta S, et al. Non-statin lipid-lowering therapy over time in very-high-risk patients: effectiveness of fixed-dose statin/ezetimibe compared to separate pill combination on LDL‑C. Clin Res Cardiol. 2022;111(3):243–52. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00392-020-01740-8.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Kotseva K, Wood D, De Bacquer D, De Backer G, Rydén L, Jennings C, et al. EUROASPIRE IV: A European Society of Cardiology survey on the lifestyle, risk factor and therapeutic management of coronary patients from 24 European countries. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016;23(6):636–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487315569401.CrossRefPubMed Kotseva K, Wood D, De Bacquer D, De Backer G, Rydén L, Jennings C, et al. EUROASPIRE IV: A European Society of Cardiology survey on the lifestyle, risk factor and therapeutic management of coronary patients from 24 European countries. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016;23(6):636–48. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​2047487315569401​.CrossRefPubMed
23.
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Ballantyne CM, Laufs U, Ray KK, Leiter LA, Bays HE, Goldberg AC, et al. Bempedoic acid plus ezetimibe fixed-dose combination in patients with hypercholesterolemia and high CVD risk treated with maximally tolerated statin therapy. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2020;27(6):593–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487319864671.CrossRefPubMed Ballantyne CM, Laufs U, Ray KK, Leiter LA, Bays HE, Goldberg AC, et al. Bempedoic acid plus ezetimibe fixed-dose combination in patients with hypercholesterolemia and high CVD risk treated with maximally tolerated statin therapy. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2020;27(6):593–603. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​2047487319864671​.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Laufs U, Friede T, Koenig W, Landmesser U, Nowak B, Zimmermann W‑H, et al. Joint statement on benefit assessment of bempedoic acid Nilemdo® and bempedoic acid / ezetimibe Nustendi®. Joint statement by DGK/DACH/DDG/DGE/DGFF/DGIM/DGfN. 2021. Laufs U, Friede T, Koenig W, Landmesser U, Nowak B, Zimmermann W‑H, et al. Joint statement on benefit assessment of bempedoic acid Nilemdo® and bempedoic acid / ezetimibe Nustendi®. Joint statement by DGK/DACH/DDG/DGE/DGFF/DGIM/DGfN. 2021.
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Schettler VJJ. Guideline-based procedure in the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia. Dial Aktuell. 2020;2020(24):345–8.CrossRef Schettler VJJ. Guideline-based procedure in the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia. Dial Aktuell. 2020;2020(24):345–8.CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem. 1972;18(6):499–502.CrossRefPubMed Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem. 1972;18(6):499–502.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Simulation of bempedoic acid and ezetimibe in the lipid-lowering treatment pathway in Austria using the contemporary SANTORINI cohort of high and very high risk patients
verfasst von
Prof. Hermann Toplak
Aikaterini Bilitou, PhD
Prof. Hannes Alber
Prof. Johann Auer
Prof. Martin Clodi
Prof. Christoph Ebenbichler
Dr. Evelyn Fließer-Görzer
Dr. Carmen Gelsinger
Dr. Ursula Hanusch
Prof. Bernhard Ludvik
Dr. Thomas Maca
Prof. Andreas Schober
Dr. Reinhard Sock
Prof. Walter S. Speidl
Prof. Thomas M. Stulnig
Prof. Raimund Weitgasser
Prof. Andreas Zirlik
Marina Koch, MSc
Sebastian Wienerroither, PhD
Sorrel E. Wolowacz, PhD
Françoise Diamand, MSc
Alberico L. Catapano
Publikationsdatum
08.06.2023
Verlag
Springer Vienna
Erschienen in
Wiener klinische Wochenschrift / Ausgabe 13-14/2023
Print ISSN: 0043-5325
Elektronische ISSN: 1613-7671
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-023-02221-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 13-14/2023

Wiener klinische Wochenschrift 13-14/2023 Zur Ausgabe

MUW researcher of the month

MUW researcher of the month